Plant and insect assemblages in mixedwood Boreal forest at the Zama silvicultural experiment site in northwestern Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data files are presented of plant and lichen survey data, pitfall trap catches of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), light trap catches of moths, and hand net catches of moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera) from a mature mixedwood Boreal forest in northwestern Alberta, Canada. Plant and lichen data are in an EXCEL file of species coverages in 32 10Ha compartments, at eight 5m x 5m plots per compartment, surveyed in 1997 and 1998. Carabid data are in an EXCEL file of counts of males and females of each species, from six pitfall traps in each of 16 compartments. The pitfall traps were run continuously for 3.5 months in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2002, and samples were removed from the traps for tabulation every two to three weeks. Lepidoptera data are in an EXCEL file listing catches from light traps run for one night, approximately every 7-21 days, in 16 compartments, for 3.5 months in 1997, 1998, and 1999, augmented by incidental net catches of day-flying species. A total of 7 tree species, 18 shrub species, 7 grasses, 41 forbs, 49 mosses, 19 lichen species, 26 carabid species, and 453 Lepidoptera species are reported.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".